So How Dirty Really Is Anthracite?

With the 'clean coal' technology, Bituminous has proven to be of high value now also.

As a wise man on this forum once said..........be very careful trying to draw a line between the two coals. To demonize one, demonizes tthe other.

Either is preferable to nuclear, IMHO. The entire Pacific is now radioactive thanks to fukushima.

When I was a kid, it was rare to know someone with asthma. All the school buses were gas jobs. Now everything is diesel, they are everywhere. Coal's biggest component is CO2, not the NOX and other crap you get from NG and oil.

SWPaDon wrote:With the 'clean coal' technology, Bituminous has proven to be of high value now also.

As a wise man on this forum once said..........be very careful trying to draw a line between the two coals. To demonize one, demonizes tthe other.

Either is preferable to nuclear, IMHO. The entire Pacific is now radioactive thanks to fukushima.

I wasn't trying to demonize bit coal,i know very little about it,have never burnt any of it,so I commented on the only coal that I am familiar with....anthracite.

NUCLEAR.... On that fateful day in March 1979,i spent the entire day outside, working the ground in preparation for seeding oats on the 1 farm I rented.This farm was Northeast of 3mile island,that day the wind was from the Southwest.... directly to me in the fields. All my exposed skin got "BURNT" like a sunburn & very itchy.....it was not a sun burn.It killed all the bees & birds in the local area & took a few yrs until their population was normal again..Miscarriages among animals & humans were commonplace in the area.. my wife experienced several,children that were alive & also those that were born in the next few yrs. have mostly been unable to produce offspring.

NUCLEAR IS NOT THE ANSWER !!!!!!!!!

Coal is not difficult to burn CLEAN !!!

Plans are in the works to stop the 'transport' of coal. A case has been given the green light to go forwards.

https://thinkprogress.org/coal-dust-clean-water-lawsuit-bnsf-b3748b74cb73#.bb9wqr2nc

Today,anthracite is re-mined.This is a huge environmental benefit.By this,I mean that the real damage was done years ago,especially during the world wars,when it was,"damn the regulations,full speed ahead!"Today's re-mining and regulation,has at no cost to the taxpayer,reclaimed tens of thousands of acres of previously abandoned pits and mined lands.If mining stops,so does free reclamation.The environmental improvements to the coal region have been incredible,keeping storm water on the surface being the biggest key. Reforestation the second benefit,among many others.Anthracite is certainly "clean" in this regard.

Lets hope that they have the same luck with the two underground coal fires burning in Pennsylvania and Poland that have been chugging right along for close to fifty years.

windyhill4.2 wrote:NUCLEAR.... On that fateful day in March 1979,i spent the entire day outside, working the ground in preparation for seeding oats on the 1 farm I rented.This farm was Northeast of 3mile island,that day the wind was from the Southwest.... directly to me in the fields. All my exposed skin got "BURNT" like a sunburn & very itchy.....it was not a sun burn.It killed all the bees & birds in the local area & took a few yrs until their population was normal again..Miscarriages among animals & humans were commonplace in the area.. my wife experienced several,children that were alive & also those that were born in the next few yrs. have mostly been unable to produce offspring.

I would be intrigued to know what your exposure was. Not that I'm doubting or refuting any of your claims, but the official report showed that the average dose was 8mrem with a max of 100 mrem to any single individual within 10 miles of the plant. Even an acute dose of 100mrem has few to no identifiable symptoms. Again I'm not disputing your experience, you were there, and I was but a gleam in my daddy's eye.

SWPaDon wrote: The entire Pacific is now radioactive thanks to fukushima.

What sort of evidence would you like to put forward to support this? If you're worried about that level of exposure, you might want to avoid granite, bananas, and self luminous dials.

We'd have a safe repository for commercial nuclear waste if it were not for the machinations of Harry Reid.

As for the original question: Does anyone know what the average emission of particulates, Sulfur Oxides, and Nitrogen Oxides from a home stove would be? We know that the emission of concern for wood burning appliances are particulates.

Not that I'm doubting or refuting any of your claims, but the official report showed that the average dose was 8mrem with a max of 100 mrem to any single individual within 10 miles of the plant.

You really think that when this happened they were ready to plot the total release pattern. Life in these surprise events is not so organized -sorry.

confedsailor wrote:What sort of evidence would you like to put forward to support this? If you're worried about that level of exposure, you might want to avoid granite, bananas, and self luminous dials.

I'll let you look up the links associated with the pictures if you are really interested. We discussed it here on the forum a while back.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pacific+ocean+radiation+ ... &FORM=IGRE

Not that I'm doubting or refuting any of your claims, but the official report showed that the average dose was 8mrem with a max of 100 mrem to any single individual within 10 miles of the plant.

You really think that when this happened they were ready to plot the total release pattern. Life in these surprise events is not so organized -sorry. I-131 is nasty whereas I- 129 which is commonly used in medicine is just fine. I believe him.

Whether coal is "dirty" or not, or, whether you choose to burn it, or not, isn't going to make a lick of difference in anything. China and India will continue to obliterate the sky with smog for every "clean" and money-grabbing regulation the EPA jams down our collective throats.

As an asthmatic, I call complete and total BULLSHIT on nearly all of the cries from the enviro-nazi left. If I'm still alive, the rest of you have nothing to worry about. That's a fact, Jack.

Coalnewbie: I said I'm curious as to what his dose was. I never said he was wrong. I fully understand that a plume is not homogeneous, and that perhaps he is a statistical outlier. The question is purely rhetorical, there's no way to figure out what his exposure was now of course.

SwPADon: From your own search, http://phys.org/news/2016-06-fukushima-oceans-years.html By the way this is a peer reviewed study, with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute involved.

"Distribution in water. Cs is very soluble, so it was rapidly dispersed in the ocean. Prevailing sea currents meant that some areas received more fall-out than others due to ocean mixing processes. At its peak in 2011, the 137Cs signal right at the FDNPP was tens of millions of times higher than prior to the accident. Over time, and with distance from Japan, levels decrease significantly. By 2014 the 137Cs signal 2000km North of Hawaii was equivalent to around six times that remaining from fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests from the 1960's, and about 2-3 times higher than prior fallout levels along the west coast of N. America. Most of the fallout is concentrated in the top few hundred metres of the sea. It is likely that maximum radiation levels will be attained off the North American coast in the 2015-16 period, before declining to 1-2 Bq per cubic metre (around the level associated with background nuclear weapon testing) by 2020. Sea-floor sediments contain less than 1% of the 137Cs released by the FDNPP, although the sea-floor contamination is still high close to the FDNPP. The redistribution of sediments by bottom-feeding organisms (more common near the coast) and storms is complex."

So the expectation is background increased from 1-2 Bq/m3 to 3-6 Bq/m3 and returned to normal for 8 years. To put that in perspective, a banana has 15 Bq of potassium activity. A 150 pound person contains 5400 Bq of K40. Would we rather Fukushima didn't happen? Yes. Do we need to panic? No.

and no I don't work in the Nuclear industry, I got out of that hot rock business when I left the Navy. I burn the dusty diamonds as a hobby.

Don't let them fool ya too much with those 'peer reviewed' studies, otherwise you may become a green weenie and start cussing us for burning the black rocks due to glabal warming.

FYI- Fukishima is still leaking after all this time and if you look in the right places, you will find what they actually aren't doing to fix it.........because they can't.

Look up Chernobyl and the wildlife..........yea, it's there.........but they glow, no need for street lights.

Well sailor man, let me school and Woods Hole a bit as they need it. The Potassium-40 analogy is flawed and this is why. K and Na are in a dynamic balance in the body. Extra potassium goes in and sodium goes out. So depleted K gives you heart attacks. They used to give slow K (CIBA GEIGY) only to find out that killed more people the other way. I am bored and there is nothing on TV so let us ruminate a bit here.

If you read Goodman and Gilman The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, always required reading for anybody in this area, you can read about classes of poisons. So for instance, two class V poisons are arsenic and sodium flouride. They take the same amount to kill you instantly (you can look it up). So why is one is in Arsenic and Old lace (an Agatha Christie novel) and the other added to water supplies. Yes, it's all down to metabolism - in the days of google I refuse to do your work for you. K 40 gets rapidly eliminated, I-131 (to use but one example) concentrates and deposits in the thyroid gland). You can't use rem dose to equate. So Fukishima is equal to eating so many bananas is a load of bollicks..... you can look that up too.

SWPaDon wrote:Don't let them fool ya too much with those 'peer reviewed' studies, otherwise you may become a green weenie and start cussing us for burning the black rocks due to glabal warming.

FYI- Fukishima is still leaking after all this time and if you look in the right places, you will find what they actually aren't doing to fix it.........because they can't.

Look up Chernobyl and the wildlife..........yea, it's there.........but they glow, no need for street lights.

So you would rather look at alarmist websites that are spreading half-truths and misinformation? Don't take this the wrong way, but that's what the "climate change" crowd are doing themselves. I'd certainly hate to lump you in with them Don.

As for Chernobyl, that's a poster child for doing it wrong. It was a poorly designed plant, operated by communists more concerned with meeting the "plan" than safety. I know just how hot it is there, I had a friend go shoot ducks in Belarus in the early aughts. He thought they were going to eat the day's bag, but the guides wouldn't let them, they didn't want paying tourists getting zapped, so the guide did what they always do, they gave the ducks to the locals.

There's a right way and a wrong way to do anything in this world, at TMI and Chernobyl, they did it the wrong way. Fukushima simply proves that God has quite the sense of humor towards our creations.